Allowed

Rajendra Prasad v. R S R T C and Ors.

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2024CW/4441/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an appellate order rejecting an appeal on limitation grounds was erroneous when the appeal was filed within the statutory period. The petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and the matter remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.02.2015 quashed; matter remitted to Appellate Authority to decide on merits within three months.

Rajendra Prasad Vs R S R T C and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:36180]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4441/2016

¶4

Rajendra Prasad S/o Shri Shankarlala, aged 42 years, R/o Mukam Post Radhakishanpura, Purohit Ji Ki Dhani, behind Krishi Upaj Mandi near Jaipur Railway Line Gate No.192, Sikar, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Officer, Parivahan Marg, Chomu Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan through its Managing Director.

¶8

Executive Director (Mechanical) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Officer, Parivahan Marg, Chomu Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶9

Depot Manager cum Authorized Disciplinary Authority, Rajsthan State Road Transport Corporation, Sikar Depot, Rajasthan

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. D. Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendar Meel on behalf of Mr. Puneet

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

29/08/2024

¶15

Aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition.

¶16

By passing of he impugned order dated 05.02.2015, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner against the impugned termination order dated 27.10.2014 on the ground of limitation.

[2024:RJ-JP:36180]

[CW-4441/2016]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 27.10.2014, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents against which the petitioner submitted statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority on 17.11.2014, i.e., within a period of limitation, i.e., 30 days, in terms of Section 35 (VII) of the RSRTC Employees Standing Order, 1965. Counsel further submits that even then, the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on the technical count of barred by limitation and the same was not decided on merits. Counsel submits that the appeal was filed within a period of limitation. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶23

Perusal of the impugned order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Appellant Authority clearly indicates that against the impugned termination order dated 27.10.2014, petitioner submitted an appeal on 17.11.2014, i.e., within 30 days in terms of the mandate contained under Section 35 (VII) of the RSRTC Employees Standing Order, 1965. The Appellate Authority has committed an error in treating the appeal as time barred as the appeal filed by the petitioner within the period of limitation. Hence under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the

[2024:RJ-JP:36180]

[CW-4441/2016]

(3 of 3)

Appellate Authority is not reasonable and sustainable in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 05.02.2015 stands quashed and set aside. 8. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, expeditiously preferably, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶29

Stay application and all application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶31

Aayush Sharma /46

Rajendra Prasad v. R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Prasad v. R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshna D/O Shri Kaboolram Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

Managing Committee, Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, (Higher Secondary Adarsh Vidhya Mandir) Vs Gulab Chand Sharma S/O Shri Battu Lal Sharma

Managing Committee Vs Smt Kalpana Patil and Anr.

Arun Sain Son of Late Shri Kishori Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Gyatri Singhal Vs State Education Department Ors.